This is how it appears to me also.

I suspect by 'free', GNU licenses aren't really referring to user-freedom more so source-code-freedom.

It all depends on the developer's objectives, no doubt.

Source-code freedom is user freedom. It's effectively a sort of guarantee.

The additional freedom that BSD licences provide is freedom for developers to do what they like, not anything to do with users.

(The biggest practical advantage of a BSD licence for most developers is that if you use one when publishing your code while you work for a company, you yourself will still be able to reuse that code after you leave.)

Developers are users.

Which is why it makes sense for developers to license their code under licenses that guarantee user freedoms - so that they themselves can benefit.

It's designed to maximize freedom overall, not freedom for one individual. There's some tension between those two goals.

I think it's basically the software equivalent of the Paradox of Tolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The AGPL maximizes both freedom overall and freedom for one individual, so there is no actual tension or equivalence with the paradox of tolerance. The key misunderstanding here is the belief that being able to keep other people from doing things is freedom. That's actually power, and that's all that copyleft licenses take away. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html for more details.

GPL 3 has similar (in spirit and mechanism) usage restrictions as the AGPL.

GPL3 cracks down on TiVo style lockdowns:

Here is an encrypted binary and source code. No existing computer will run either without a secret key you cannot have.

AGPL cracks down on Google style lockdowns:

You can't have binaries or sources, but you can use this GPL software as long as you agree to a long and ever changing EULA that includes clauses for surveillance, binding arbitration and worse.

BSD licenses are only freer for developers, not for end users. The F in FOSS refers to the users' freedoms, not the developer's / vendor's freedoms.

Yep. That's the invention of GPL2 -> GPL3.

PS: I love how one gets flagged for expressing an opinion. Public lynching and censorship rather than debate.

TiVo's lockdown was slightly different:

Here is a device running Linux and a proprietary binary. The proprietary binary will stop working if you modify and reinstall Linux.

This isn't prevented even with GPLv3. Also even GPLv2 has an implied right to install and run modified versions.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...